Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Trump

Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 24–1287 and 25–250
Argued November 5, 2025 — Decided February 20, 2026
Opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

This case asked whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, allows the President of the United States to impose tariffs on imported goods during a declared national emergency. The Court held that it does not.

Summary

The Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, including tariffs. While Congress may delegate some authority to the Executive Branch, it must do so clearly. The Court found no clear authorization in IEEPA allowing the President to impose tariffs of unlimited size, duration, and scope.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was affirmed. The judgment of the District Court in the related case was vacated, and that case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Background

Shortly after taking office, President Donald J. Trump declared national emergencies based on two issues: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China, and what he described as large and persistent trade deficits that harmed American manufacturing and supply chains.

Invoking IEEPA, the President imposed tariffs to address both concerns. He placed a 25 percent tariff on most imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10 percent tariff on most imports from China to address drug trafficking. He also imposed “reciprocal” tariffs of at least 10 percent on imports from nearly all trading partners, with higher rates for dozens of nations. Over time, the President increased, reduced, and modified these tariffs multiple times.

Several small businesses and twelve states challenged the tariffs. In one case, filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., the court granted a preliminary injunction, ruling that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs. In another case, filed in the Court of International Trade, that court ruled for the plaintiffs on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in relevant part.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear both cases and consolidated them.

Legal Standard

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. Tariffs are a form of tax. The Framers placed the taxing power in Congress alone and required that revenue-raising bills originate in the House of Representatives.

The President has no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime. Therefore, if the President has such power, it must come from a clear delegation by Congress.

The Court has repeatedly said it will not lightly assume that Congress has delegated major powers to the Executive Branch through vague or ambiguous language. In cases involving issues of great economic and political significance, the Court requires clear congressional authorization. This principle is often referred to as the “major questions doctrine.”

Analysis

The Government argued that IEEPA authorizes the President to “regulate” importation and that this language includes the power to impose tariffs.

The Court disagreed.

First, IEEPA never mentions tariffs or duties. When Congress delegates tariff authority in other statutes, it does so explicitly and usually places limits on the amount, duration, and procedures involved. IEEPA contains no such language.

Second, the ordinary meaning of the word “regulate” does not include taxation. Many federal statutes give agencies the power to regulate industries or activities. None of them use the word “regulate” to grant the power to impose taxes.

Third, tariffs are not simply another regulatory tool. They are taxes that raise revenue for the Treasury. The Constitution treats the power to tax as distinct from the power to regulate commerce.

Fourth, reading IEEPA to allow tariffs would create serious constitutional concerns. The statute allows the President to regulate both importation and exportation. But the Constitution expressly forbids taxes on exports. Interpreting “regulate” to include taxation would place the statute in tension with that prohibition.

Fifth, history did not support the Government’s position. In the nearly fifty years since IEEPA was enacted, no President had used it to impose tariffs of any kind. Presidents have relied on other statutes when imposing tariffs, and those statutes contain clear authorizations and limits.

The Court also rejected the argument that emergency statutes should be read broadly. Emergency powers do not eliminate constitutional limits. Nor did the foreign affairs context change the analysis. The Constitution assigns the power to impose tariffs to Congress alone, even though tariffs affect foreign relations.

Because imposing sweeping tariffs of unlimited size and duration is a matter of enormous economic and political significance, the President needed clear congressional authorization. IEEPA’s general language about regulating importation was not enough.

Irreparable Harm

The Supreme Court’s decision addressed the legal authority of the President under IEEPA. It did not separately analyze irreparable harm. However, the lower courts had concluded that businesses faced significant economic injury from the tariffs, which supported preliminary relief in the district court.

Public Interest

The Court emphasized that maintaining the constitutional separation of powers serves the public interest. Decisions about taxation and tariff policy carry enormous consequences for the national economy. The Constitution assigns those decisions to Congress, and the judiciary’s role is to enforce that allocation of authority.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The power to lay and collect tariffs belongs to Congress. If Congress wishes to delegate that authority, it must do so clearly and explicitly. Because IEEPA contains no such clear authorization, the President’s tariffs could not stand under that statute.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was affirmed. The judgment of the District Court for the District of Columbia was vacated, and that case was remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Why This Case Matters

This decision reinforces one of the Constitution’s central structural principles: the separation of powers.

The Framers gave Congress control over taxation, including tariffs, because taxation directly affects the people and the national economy. By ruling that IEEPA does not authorize unilateral presidential tariffs, the Court reaffirmed that major economic decisions must come from Congress unless Congress clearly says otherwise.

The case also strengthens the principle that vague statutory language cannot be used to justify sweeping executive power on issues of vast economic and political importance. Emergency declarations do not erase constitutional boundaries.

Going forward, Presidents seeking to impose tariffs must rely on statutes that explicitly grant that authority, and Congress retains the primary responsibility for shaping national trade policy.

Endnotes

References to constitutional provisions and prior Supreme Court decisions were consolidated from the original opinion and removed from the body text for readability.

Educational Disclaimer: This page presents a plain-English educational summary of a Supreme Court decision. It does not replace the official opinion of the Court and is provided for public understanding only.